nccmnfandomcom_ro-20200216-history
Encyclopedia of World History Z
The Ancient World Zakkai, Yohanan ben (d. 80 c.e.) religious leader Yohanan ben Zakkai was the religious and political leader who laid the foundation for rabbinic Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem and its Temple. H. J. Schoeps said of his leadership: “The state was changed into an academy, the royal dynasty into a patriarchate, and the Sanhedrin left the Temple site and continued independently in Jabneh.” As a Pharisee, Yohanan studied under Hillel and Shammai, though he was more infl uenced by Hillel, the liberal sage. He found himself constantly arguing with the Sadducees and the Zealots, an anti-Roman group who fi gured heavily in the uprising of 70 c.e. Yohanan was known as a pious and pacifi stic rabbi who ran his own school in Jerusalem at the time of the Roman invasion and siege. Like many Pharisees, he had specifi c interpretations of the Bible and predicted the doom of the Temple. To escape the city he feigned his own death and was carried out in a coffi n. Vespasian received him as a religious holy man and allowed him to run an academy of scholars and rabbis in Yavneh until his death in 80 c.e. In the literary framework laid out in rabbinic documents, both Vespasian and Yohanan are stereotypes representing Israel and rabbinism and Rome and the Gentiles. In fact, Yohanan was supposed to have prophesied to Vespasian—like the mighty prophet Jeremiah—that he would be the new Caesar. The point of the stereotypical story is that Yohanan and his band of rabbis were a prophetic movement that accurately interpreted the Bible in real-world ways and were respected by the Romans. From the time of Yohanan until the time of Bar Kokhba, the city of Yavneh was a cultural and spiritual center for Jews in Palestine. There Yohanan is alleged to have formed his disciples and to have carried out the religious duties of the Law, good deeds, and prayer. In reality Yavneh allowed Jews to reformulate a vision for their faith. There the Mishnah was put together as the religious constitution of what would become rabbinic Judaism. Late 19thcentury German historians proposed that Yavneh was the place where Yohanan’s council of rabbis took decisive actions to formalize their faith. Based on fl imsy rabbinic evidence they persuaded the world that the rabbis, between the days of Yohanan ben Zakkai and Eleazar ben Azariah (90 c.e.), chose the books that made up the Jewish Bible, chose which texts represented the true biblical texts (and rejected all other texts as deviant), and formally excluded the Christians as heretics from the faith. In short, Yavneh’s supposed decrees became for these historians the symbol of the Jewish response to a world without temple, holy city, or holy land—in the absence of solid evidence. Yohanan’s own contributions to the deliberation, recorded by the rabbis, cannot be ascertained exactly. However, one of his important assertions was that sages had more practical authority than priests. The authority covered such things as Sabbath customs and festal and calendar observances. This position would serve Jews well in the years after 70 c.e., when keeping temple holiness in homes and villages had to serve when no temple sacrifi ce could be made. The legends about him suggest Z 503 that he restrained messianic fervor, urged obedience to the Law as a response to defeat, and taught that good deeds atoned for sin in a world without the Temple. After Yohanan retired from the council of rabbis at Yavneh, Gamaliel II succeeded him. Gamaliel II formalized the role that Yohanan played at Yavneh when he was recognized as “prince” by provincial Roman authorities and made his own offi cial visit to Rome in company with other rabbinic scholars. More important, rabbis who did not initially participate at Yavneh now began to look to Gamaliel and his rabbis for leadership. Yohanan is so revered in later rabbinic Judaism that he is simply called “Rabban” in the documents, meaning “Our Teacher.” Modern-day rabbinic Jews consider him their founding father in the faith. He also is one of the most quoted rabbis in the Talmud. Despite all the legends told about him in the later Jewish writings, scant fi rst-rate historical records exist about him. History’s recollection of him is based on mythical reports written centuries later. See also Christianity, early; Jewish revolts; Judaism, early (heterodoxies); prophets; Roman Empire; Rome: government. Further reading: Finkelstein, Louis. Akiba: Scholar, Saint and Martyr. Reprint, New York: Atheneum, 1970; Hezser, Catherine. The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 1997; Lewis, J. P. “Jamnia (Jabneh), Council of,” ABD (v.3); Neusner, J. A Life of Yohanan Ben Zakkai: Ca. 1–80 C.E. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1970; Schoeps, H. J. Ausfruhchristlicer Zeit. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr, 1950. Mark F. Whitters Zhang Qian (Chang Ch’ien) (d. 113 b.c.e.) explorer and diplomat Zhang Qian was the greatest explorer in ancient China, having made two long journeys in 139 and 115 b.c.e. He was also an important diplomat for the Han emperor Wu. After suffering a major defeat at the hands of the nomadic Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu), Liu Bang (Liu Pang), founder of the Han dynasty (202 b.c.e.–220 c.e.) decided to appease his formidable northern neighbors by concluding the fi rst of many Heqin (He-ch’in) treaties with them. The terms included gifts of large quantities of silver, food, and silks to the Xiongnu and the marriage of Han princesses to the Xiongnu rulers. Han agreed to the humiliating terms because the dynasty was new and unstable and because the people were exhausted from previous wars and not ready to undertake new ones. In 141 b.c.e. a young man, posthumously known as Han Wudi (Han Wu-ti), or the Martial Emperor, ascended the throne. By this time the empire was stable, had grown materially, and commanded suffi cient resources and manpower to support an expansionist policy. Moreover, appeasement of the Xiongnu had resulted in ever more exorbitant demands for gifts each time the Heqin Treaty was renewed and also because appeasement had not bought border peace from Xiongnu raids. A broad new strategy emerged. One part was to seek allies against the Xiongnu. Thus in 139 b.c.e. a young courtier named Zhang Qian was chosen to journey west to fi nd the Yuezhi (Yueh-chih), a nomadic group that had suffered under Xiong nu power and had been expelled from their home in northwestern China. Zhang set out with 100 men. He had to cross Xiongnu territory to reach his goal and was captured. He would remain among them for 10 years, marry a Xiongnu woman, and raise a family before he could escape and resume his journey. He did fi nally fi nd the Yuezhi in the borderland of modern Afghanistan and Pakistan, but they were content in their new home and refused an alliance with the Han against the Xiongnu. En route home Zhang was recaptured by the Xiongnu but fi nally escaped and reached home in 126 b.c.e. with only one of his original entourage. Meantime, Emperor Wu had begun massive many-pronged campaigns against the Xiongnu in 133 b.c.e. Though Zhang failed in his primary mission, his reports of the lands, resources, and people of Central Asia and of the availability of Chinese silks in India, possibly via trade routes across southwestern China, piqued Emperor Wu’s interest to expand in both directions. Campaigns under Wudi’s generals brought vast regions under Chinese rule. They included southwestern China, northern Vietnam, and much of Korea. China also established a tributary system in Central Asia (called Western Regions by the Chinese) whereby local rulers retained their authority but submitted to the supervision of Chinese protector-generals (similar to Roman proconsuls), rendered tribute, and left sons to be educated in China and as hostages at the Chinese court. In 115 b.c.e. Zhang was sent as envoy to Wusun (Wu-sun) and established relations with that nomadic state northwest of the Xiongnu (a Han princess was married to the Wusun ruler) and further west with such Central Asian states as Ferghana, Bactria, Sogdiana, and Khotan. Zhang Qian was important because his missions and reports 504 Zhang Qian stimulated Chinese military, diplomatic, and commercial expansion into vast new realms. See also Sogdians. Further reading: Twitchett, Denis, and Michael Loewe, eds. The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 1, The Ch’in and Han Empires 221 B.C.–A.D. 220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986; Yu, Ying-shih. Trade and Expansion in Han China: A Study in the Structure of Sino-Barbarian Economic Relations. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Zhou, Duke of See Duke of Zhou (Chou). Zhou (Chou) dynasty The Zhou, together with the preceding Xia (Hsia) dynasty and Shang dynasty, are called the Three Dynasties in Chinese history. They account for two millennia that are the formative era of the Chinese civilization. All three dynasties are the products of the Neolithic civilization of northern China, each occupying a different but overlapping region of the Yellow River valley. They are moreover contemporaries of one another, each achieving dominance over several centuries, then receding to subordinate status. For example, postdynastic Xia became a state called Qi (Ch’i), while postdynastic Shang survived as a state called Song (Sung). Because the Zhou (Chou) was very long lived, it is subdivided into several shorter eras, beginning with the Western Zhou (1122–771 b.c.e.), followed by the Eastern Zhou (770–256 b.c.e.). Eastern Zhou is further subdivided into the Spring and Autumn era (722–481 b.c.e.), followed by the Warring States era (463–222 b.c.e.). Unlike the Xia and the Shang, multitudes of contemporary written records survived from the Zhou. Early Zhou records include the Shu Jing (Shu Ching), or Book of History (or Book of Documents), which include proclamations, edicts, and pronouncements on the early phase of the dynasty, and the Shi Jing (Shih Ching), or Book of Poetry, with many poems that dealt with the early Zhou era. These are supplemented by thousands of bronze vessels found in archaeological digs cast with inscriptions up to 500 words long that described important events, such as battles and the creation of fi efs. The number of surviving written works multiplied with the progress of time. The information they provide are supplemented by other material evidence from thousands of excavated Zhou sites. KINGS WEN AND WU Predynastic Zhou people were frontiersmen living in the Plain of Zhou where the Wei River joined the Yellow River in modern Sha’anxi (Shensi) Province. They acted as a bastion against the “barbarians” beyond the frontiers, and their leader was given the title Lord of the West by Shang kings. King Wen (the Cultivated) was the fi rst great Zhou leader, noted for his benevolence and for building up his state that could challenge the Shang. Wen’s son, King Wu (the Martial), followed him in 1133 b.c.e. Wu formed a coalition with eight other states disgruntled with the Shang. In 1122 b.c.e. Wu’s forces decisively defeated the Shang king Shou at the Battle of Muye (Mu-yeh), who then committed suicide. Wu died shortly after destroying the Shang and left the task of consolidating the new dynasty to his brother, the Duke of Zhou (Chou), who acted as regent for Wu’s young son for seven years. THE DUKE OF ZHOU The Duke of Zhou fought to defeat remnant Shang forces and enlarged the realm to the eastern seaboard, creating a state that is larger than modern-day France. He governed the realm from two capitals, the original Zhou capital at Hao, near modern Xi’an (Sian), and a new one called Luoyang (Loyang), further down the Yellow River valley to govern the former Shang lands and beyond. He granted land to relatives and allies and gave them grand titles. The lords built walled towns and governed the surrounding land but were accountable to the king and could pass their titles and land to their sons with royal permission. Each lord swore allegiance to the king in rituals conducted in the ancestral temples of the Zhou royal house. Most people were farmers with status similar to that of European medieval serfs who changed hands with the land. Ideally eight families farmed individual plots around a manor and jointly farmed the ninth plot for the lord. The farming system was called the wellfi eld system. These political and economic arrangements resembled those of European feudalism during the Middle Ages; hence the Zhou system is also called feudal. In retrospect, King Wen the dynastic founder, King Wu the conqueror, and the Duke of Zhou the consolidator are honored as sage rulers, who established a golden age. WESTERN ZHOU For three centuries Zhou kings generally maintained internal peace and expanded the frontiers until 771 b.c.e. Zhou (Chou) dynasty 505 when non-Chinese tribal people overran the capital, Hao, and killed King Yu. Reputedly he had numerous times falsely summoned the feudal lords to march their troops to the capital because the sight of massed troops pleased his favorite lady. Then when a true emergency occurred, the disgruntled lords had refused to come. The survivors of the Zhou court abandoned Hao in favor of the second capital, Luoyang. EASTERN ZHOU The Eastern Zhou (770–256 b.c.e.) saw progressive decline of the power of the kings, whose domain was reduced to land around Luoyang. The king was consulted perfunctorily, then only on genealogical matters. Powerful regional states emerged, warring among themselves, gradually swallowing up the lesser ones. The Zhou monarchs remained on the throne until 256 b.c.e. because they were too insignificant to count. The 500 years of the Eastern Zhou is divided into the Spring and Autumn era after a book of the same name by Confucius that chronicled the history of his state, Lu (ruled by descendants of the Duke of Zhou), from 722 to 481 b.c.e. In 681 b.c.e., in response to threats from Zhu (Ch’u), a new state in the south, the remaining states joined to form an alliance, and because the Zhou king was powerless to keep the peace, they elected one lord hegemon, or ba (pa) in Chinese. For the next 200 years the reigning dukes of several of the states were successively elected hegemon, convening conferences between the states at intervals and formulating policies or waging wars, or keeping a precarious peace. This was a stopgap solution to maintain some order in the Chinese world without the power and leadership of Zhou kings, who were consulted pro forma and ratified decisions that were already made. The chief feature of the Spring and Autumn era was interstate diplomatic sparring and generally small-scale wars fought by chariot-driving knights. Many of the rival leaders were related by blood, and the defeated lord was shamed rather than killed. A large battle fought between Jin (Chin) and Qi (Ch’i) in 589 b.c.e. involved 800 chariots and 12,000 men, but most battles were smaller. By the end of the era 110 states had been reduced to 22. WARRING STATES The Warring States era (463–222 b.c.e.) that followed was also named after a book, The Annals of the Warring States. The wars became very destructive and were fought by large disciplined infantry armies, fewer chariots (which were not useful in varied terrain), and more cavalry. Iron weapons replaced bronze ones, and the powerful crossbow came into general use. Whereas the Chinese world up to 335 b.c.e. had only one king, thereafter the rulers of major states also began to call themselves kings; in 256 b.c.e. one state, Qin (Ch’in) deposed the last Zhou king and annexed his domain. The continued fighting between the seven major states that had emerged was based on the accepted premise that all China be unified under one ruler. The final victor was Qin in northwestern China. Fighting the non-Chinese nomads toughened its people, its frontier position saved it from earlier phases of destructive wars between the other states, and its conquest of the Sichuan (Szechwan) plains gave it huge new resources. Finally its state ideology, called Legalism, enabled Qin to build a strong economy, large army, and efficient bureaucracy that allowed it to launch a final successful drive for unification, achieved in 221 b.c.e. TECHNOLOGICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ADVANCEMENTS Many social and economic changes occurred during the Eastern Zhou period. Early farming by serfs was gradually replaced by freehold farming. Qin led the way by ending feudalism on the premise that free tax-paying farmers would work and fight harder. By the fifth century b.c.e. iron tools had replaced stone and wooden ones in land clearing and farming, increasing acreage using iron-tipped, animal-drawn plows that replaced wooden digging sticks. Borrowing techniques used in bronze making, Chinese metalsmiths were making cast-iron tools and weapons 1,000 years earlier than their counterparts in Europe. States competing for supremacy encouraged advanced farming techniques that included irrigation, fertilization, and crop rotation. Hunting and grazing decreased in importance as more land was used for crops. Manufacturing and commerce flourished; sizable multifunctional towns proliferated, and growing artisan and merchant classes emerged. During the Warring States period the capital city of Qi boasted a population of 70,000 households. Cowrie shells, bolts of silk, and dogs were used as media of exchange in an earlier primarily barter economy, and cast-metal coins became common by the mid-fifth century. The Zhou conquest appeared to have ushered in a period of social mobility—the establishment of a new Zhou order resulted in stability when positions and jobs became hereditary. By the Warring States era society had outgrown the old order; merchants did not fit into the feudal hierarchy. More important, the competitive political scene encouraged rulers to hire and promote 506 Zhou (Chou) dynasty men based on merit and not birth. Capable men began to sell their talents wherever they could fi nd employment. The frequent wars also made for social mobility. Men and women from the losing side lost at least their status; in many instances lords and ladies from defeated states became slaves and servants to their conquerors. The lowest among the aristocrats, the shi (shih), originally professional fi ghting men, became educated and served as bureaucrats of the rulers. Some among them became teachers and philosophers. They became the teachers of the Hundred Schools of Philosophy, and their ideas, writings, and debates produced the classical philosophies of the Chinese civilization. See also Wen and Wu. Further reading: Hsu, Cho-yun. Ancient China in Transition, An Analysis of Social Mobility, 722–222 B.C. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1965; ———, and Kathryn M. Lindruff. Western Chou Civilization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988; Loewe, Michael, and Edward L. Shaughnessy, eds. The Cambridge History of Ancient China, From the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Zhuangzi See Laozi (Lao Tzu) and Zhuangzi (Chuang Tzu). Zoroastrianism Western European scholars have traditionally referred to ancient Iranian religion after the acknowledged founding fi gure of the political formulation of that religion, Zarathushtra. The term Zoroastrianism was derived from his name. Today the faith is better known by the name of its devotees, the Parsis. In the ancient Persian Empire there was no general designation for their religion. Moreover, even when centralized authority was pursued and Zoroastrianism was adopted throughout the realm, the religion remained locally distinct throughout the ancient empires, each region having its own variation on the general scheme. The Avesta, the holy text, was fi rst committed to writing in the sixth century c.e. Both religious tradition and linguistic evidence points to an ancient oral transmission. The oldest texts are the Gathas, assigned a date of roughly 1000 b.c.e. on linguistic grounds; whether they can seriously be ascribed to Zarathushtra is unknown. Little is known about Zarathushtra. Some scholars doubt the existence of a historical fi gure at all. Dates proposed for his life extend from the sixth millennium b.c.e. to 569 b.c.e. Scholars place his life in the range of c. 1200–600 b.c.e. He lived in eastern Iran, was from a priestly family, and was well trained in ritual observance. He reduced the Iranian pantheon to the single deity Ahura Mazda and defi ned religious life in terms of proper behavior in the pursuit of truth. Observance of purity and avoidance of pollution were central concerns. Fire became the symbol of truth, light, and order; as such it was protected from pollution. The history of ancient Zoroastrianism can be divided into four stages. First, in the formative period, a confl ation of religious traditions took place with two predominating. One was the Indo-Iranian mythology refl ected in the Rig-Veda of India that shows a division of the divine realm into deities and demons, though good and evil are reversed in Iran. Creation stories, purity rites, and sacrifi ces are shared by these traditions. The second major infl uence on early Zoroastrianism was the religious tradition of Babylonia and Assyria, especially the centrality of the king and the relationship between the ruler and the major deity. In the second, or Achaemenid period, equated with the Persian Empire c. 559–336 b.c.e., the ruling elite accepted Ahura Mazda as their patron deity and as their contact with the divine realm. They were responsible for spreading the faith from eastern Iran throughout the empire. The establishment of fi re towers to house fl ames symbolizing the pure thought and deeds of the faithful were instigated. The humane administration of Cyrus II may have stemmed from the ethics of Zoroastrianism. Third, during the era of Hellenization, which extended from Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Persian Empire well into the restored Parthian Empire, c. 336 b.c.e.–224 c.e., Greek rulers and classical thought impinged on Iranian religion. By tradition it is during this period that the Avesta was standardized as an oral ritual text. Most of what is known of early Zoroastrianism is derived from contemporary Greek and Roman writers of this time, and they held Zarathushtra in godlike esteem. Finally, the Sassanid Empire, c. 224–632 c.e., codifi ed, centralized, and nationalized Zoroastrianism as the state religion. Priests became major political players, and the Avesta was fi rst committed to writing. This period ended with the Islamic invasions. Zoroastrianism made such an impression on Muhammad and his followers that they were guaranteed protection along with the Jews and Christians. Zoroastrianism 507 Central tenets of ancient Zoroastrianism included the cosmic battle between asha (truth) and druj (lie) represented by the deities Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu, respectively (Angra Mainyu is the same as Ahriman, or Satan, in the biblical tradition). Time was divided into eternal time, in which dwells Ahura Mazda, and temporal time, which is an aspect of creation. Space also consists of the invisible, which contains the ordering principles, and the visible, which is the material world. The Amesha Spentas (Benefi - cent Immortals) and a host of lesser divine beings aid Ahura Mazda in the fi ght with Angra Mainyu’s demons. This essentially dualistic vision of the cosmos would eventually end with the victory of asha and the establishment of a perfect future world into which the righteous would be resurrected in their youthful bodies. A notion of a savior fi gure (saoshyant) as redeemer of the world arose with this idea. The body and soul of every individual would meet after death on a bridge spanning earth and heaven. For those whose lives were on the side of truth, the bridge was a wide thoroughfare to heavenly rewards; for those whose lives were a lie, the bridge was too narrow to sustain them and they fell into a pit. Little is recorded of the delights of heaven, but the punishments of the pit were extensively described. In the Sassanid period corpses were laid out on structures designed to keep bodies from pollution until birds consumed the earthly body. Three major priesthoods existed. Zaotar performed sacrifi ces. Mathran composed hymns, until the Avesta was standardized. Magi became the primary priests of the Parthian period and were recorded by classical writers as adept at interpreting signs and dreams as well as being prophets. Other groups of priests are also attested, though women were not allowed into any priesthood. The faithful were expected to sacrifi ce to Ahura Mazda through pure thoughts, words, and deeds. Prayers were to be said fi ve times a day, though the central ritual of reciting the Avesta from memory was the duty of two priests selected to represent all Zoroastrians. See also Babylon, early period; Indo-Europeans; Persian myth; Sanskrit; Vedas; Vedic age. Further reading: Boyce, Mary. Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979; Malandra, William W., trans. and ed. An Introduction to Ancient Iranian Religion: Readings from the Avesta and the Achaemenid Inscriptions. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1983. Lowell Handy The Expanding World 600 CE to 1450 Zen (Ch’an) Buddhism Zen is a form of Buddhism that concentrates on calm, refl ective forms of meditation in the quest for enlightenment. The word Zen, by which the school is known in Japan, derives from the Sanskrit word dhyana, which means “meditation.” Dhyana took root in China and was translated into the Chinese character ch’an. Zen is the Japanese pronunciation of ch’an, while it is also known in Korean as Seon and in Vietnamese as Thien. The same basic principles and provenance of the school apply to each country where Zen Buddhism has come to be practiced, although it has developed slightly differently in each country over the years. The essence of Zen Buddhism is that the capability to attain the Buddhahood— to recreate the enlightenment of Gautama Buddha—exists within all people but remains latent because of ignorance of its presence. It is, consequently, a branch of Mahayana Buddhism. To liberate the potential for enlightenment, the best method is to penetrate mundane, rational thought to achieve a sudden transcendent understanding. Training in the way to achieve this should be transmitted from a Zen master to a student individually and is known as satori. All other activities, such as studying scriptures, proper behavior, and charitable works, prescribed by different schools of Buddhist thought are held to be less valuable approaches to enlightenment and may in fact be worthless. The originator of Zen Buddhism is believed to be the Indian monk Bodhidharma, who resided in China in the sixth century. Bodhidharma is said to be the 28th patriarch of the Indian meditation school that was founded by the monk Kasyapa, to whom the lord Buddha revealed his enlightened nature directly. Bodhidharma continued the practice of passing authority over the school through subsequent patriarchs, the fi rst of whom was Hui-ko. By the end of the reign of the fi fth patriarch, the school began to suffer from schisms and it was a branch of the so-called Southern school that took root in Japan. This featured students’ concentrating on koan (or kung-an in Chinese), which are apparently contradictory aphorisms, which, when resolved, can lead the mind to sudden enlightenment. In some schools, the focus on koan was assisted by the Zen master’s slapping the face of the student or emitting unexpected shouts to help intensify the mind’s activity. Other schools favored the zazen method of sitting quietly. Zen spread slowly from China and was established in Japan in the 12th century. Many of the warrior class practiced Zen and lent their support to its protection. The monk Dogen, who founded his own temple in Japan after having achieved enlightenment in China while in the zazen position, led further development. Further reading: Souyri, Pierre-François. The World Turned Upside Down: Medieval Japanese Society. Trans. by Kathe Roth. London: Random House, 2002; Suzuki, Daisetz T. Zen Buddhism: Selected Writings of D. T. Suzuki. Ed. by William Barrett. New York: Doubleday, 1996. John Walsh Zhao Kuangyin (Chao K’uang-yin) (928–976) Chinese emperor Zhao Kuangyin, founder of the Song (Sung) dynasty (960–1289), is better known by his posthumous title Song Taizu (T’ai-tsu), which means “Grand Progenitor of the Song.” China was plunged into half a century of turmoil after the fall of the Tang (T’ang) dynasty in 909. From 909 to 960 fi ve ephemeral dynasties contended for power in North China while 10 regional kingdoms struggled with one another in the south. The last of the fi ve dynasties was called the Later Zhou (Chou); it only lasted for 10 years (951–960) because when the founder died, he left the throne to his young son under the boy’s mother as regent. When a nomadic people called Khitan invaded, she ordered General Zhao Kuangyin commander of troops to battle against them. After one day on the march the troops mutinied and demanded that Zhao become emperor. He agreed on condition that they did not harm the Later Zhou royal family, then they marched back to the capital city Kaifeng (K’ai-feng) and Zhao was proclaimed emperor of the Song dynasty. Taizu was a military commander and understood that he owed his throne to his offi cers, who could just as easily unseat him. He also understood that he needed the army to reunify China because parts of the north and the entire south were not under his control. He took care of his dual problem immediately in the following way. He held a banquet for his top offi cers and, after much drinking, persuaded them to hand over their commands in return for retirement on generous pensions. After securing their agreement he allowed them to build lavish mansions in the capital (where they were under surveillance) and ensured their continued allegiance by intermarriages among their respective families. He promoted loyal junior offi cers to command, rotated units to secure imperial control, and proceeded to reunify China with relatively little bloodshed. Taizu’s mother was a wise woman. She feared overthrow of the new Song dynasty should Taizu (who was only 32 when he became emperor) die and be followed by a young and inexperienced son, as had happened to the Later Zhou. Therefore she made her family agree to her plans on the succession on her deathbed in 961—that Taizu would be succeeded by his younger brother, who was also an experienced general. By the time the younger brother, who ruled as Taizong (T’ang-tsung), died in 997, the Song dynasty was well established. The brothers were able administrators who worked to centralize the administration and to establish civilian control over the military. They expanded the examination system and recruited civil offi cials down to the county level from those who had passed the exams, which were based on the Confucian Classics. Taizu was content not to attempt the reconquest of northeastern and northwestern China, which had been under the Tang empire, but were then ruled by nomad states. The institutions and the tone of government set by the Taizu would endure through the Song dynasty. See also Five Dynasties of China. Further reading: Bols, Peter K. “This Culture of Ours,” Intellectual Transitions in T’ang and Sung China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992; Liao, Ben, and Letitia Lane. Renaissance in China: The Culture and Art of the Song Dynasty. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2007; Mote, F. W. Imperial China, 900–1800. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Zheng He (Cheng Ho) (1371–1434) Chinese explorer Zheng He was born into a Muslim family named Ma in Kunying, Yunnan province. At the beginning of the Ming dynasty (1368–1644), a number of generals fi ghting on the frontiers were put in charge of recruiting eunuchs for the court. When Yunnan was pacifi ed in 1381, Zheng He, then aged around 10, was castrated and assigned to the retinue of Prince Zhu Di (Chi Ti) in Beijing (Peking). As a young man, Zheng He accompanied Zhu Di and distinguished himself in a series of military campaigns against the Mongols. During the rebellion (1399–1402) by means of which the prince usurped the throne, Zheng He played an important role, culminating in the capture of the capital city Nanjing (Nanking). Amid the confl agration, the dethroned emperor Zhu Yunwen (Chu Yun-wen) reportedly escaped. The suspicion that he might have been wandering abroad became one of the reasons Zhu Di, now Emperor Yongle (Yung-lo), launched a number of maritime expeditions led by his trusted eunuch, who was given the surname Zheng in 1404. Preparations for the fi rst voyage included the construction of oceangoing vessels of various sizes and the recruitment and training of the crew and staff of spe- 442 Zhao Kuangyin cialists. In 1405 more than 300 vessels and a crew of 27,800 men set out from the lower Yangzi (Yangtze) estuary and headed south along the coastal waters of Southeast Asia. After pacifying the troubled waters of the Malacca Strait, the fl eet crossed the Indian Ocean and reached the port of Calicut on the Malabar coast of southern India. The second expedition (1407–09) followed the same route as the fi rst, adding visits to several states along the coasts of Vietnam, Thailand, Java, and the nearby islands as well as Ceylon (Sri Lanka). The third expedition (1409–11) explored the Ryukyu Islands, Taiwan, the Sulu Archipelago, and Borneo before reaching the same destinations as the previous voyage. The fourth voyage (1413–15) expanded its reach to include the Maldives, Hormuz, the Hadramaut coast, and Aden. During the fi fth voyage (1417–19), Mogadishu, Brawa, and Malindi in East Africa were added to the itinerary, and many rare species of plants and animals were brought back to the capital Beijing. The sixth voyage (1421–22) ventured south along the East African coast with visits to Zanzibar and probably Kilwa, located below the equator. In 1424 Emperor Yongle died and criticism of the expensive voyages grew louder in the court. However, the new emperor, Xuande (Hsuan-te), wanted to launch yet another expedition in order to revive China’s tributary relations with the many states established heretofore. After many delays, Zheng He departed on his seventh and last voyage in 1431. His death in Calicut in 1434 ended the whole enterprise. During a period of 28 years, China displayed a remarkably advanced maritime technology, which led to increased contact with scores of states and regions from the Malay Archipelago in the east to East Africa in the west. Besides establishing diplomatic relations through the exchange of gifts and visits by foreign rulers to the Chinese capital, more markets were opened up for Chinese products, especially silks and porcelains. A brilliant commander, diplomat, and explorer, Zheng He made voyages that broadened China’s geographical horizons, and the maritime trade enriched its domestic economy during the heyday of the Ming dynasty Further reading: Goodrich, L. Carrington, ed. Dictionary of Ming Biography, 1368–1664. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976; Yamashita, Michael. Cheng He, Tracing the Epic Voyages of China’s Greatest Explorer. Trans. by Sarah Ponting. Vercelli, Italy: White Star, 2006. Kuei-sheng Chang Zhu Xi (Chu Hsi) (1130–1200) Chinese scholar Zhu Xi was a prominent Song (Sung) dynasty Neo- Confucian scholar who taught at the White Deer Grotto Academy and, by completing the second wave of canonizing Confucian learning, created a program of education and self-cultivation that became the offi cial standard for the Chinese civil service examinations from 1313 until 1905. The son of a Confucian scholar-administrator, Zhu proved a highly precocious youth who in his teens was attracted to Zen (Ch’an) Buddhism, while concurrently preparing himself for the civil service examinations. Passing the highest regular examination (jinshi) at the age of 18, he embarked on a career combining periods of offi cial service with longer periods of teaching and writing. Zhu’s greatness consisted in his ability to formulate a unifi ed system of thought integrating both the contributions of his Song predecessors and the popular Buddhist and Taoist principles that had made signifi cant inroads into China with the long line of traditional Confucian teachings. Moreover Zhu codifi ed as basic texts of the Confucian school the Four Books—the Meng-Zi, Daxue (Great Learning), Zhong Yong (Doctrine of the Mean), and the Analects—and wrote exhaustive interpretations of every sentence in the Four Books, called the Annotations. His philosophy, often identifi ed as the Cheng-Zhu school (since his most infl uential predecessor was Cheng Yi), emphasizes the doctrines of li (principle), qi (vital force), Xing or hsing (the nature of all things), xin or hsin (the human heart-mind), and Tai-Qi (tai-chi or the Great Ultimate) in an attempt to reorient education toward moral practice. Zhu argued that li is the unchanging and eternal principle of being, order, and pattern (encompassing both universal and particular elements) that brings all essences into being and comprises the moral structure of the universe. These essences are actualized by qi, the psychophysical vital force or simultaneously material and immaterial substance of the universe, which animates or fi lls out the individual patterns created by li. The source and sum of these two universal elements (li and qi) is the tai-qi, which also causes qi to move and change in the physical world, resulting in the division of the world into the two energy modes (yin and yang) and the fi ve elements (fi re, water, wood, metal, and earth). Hence qi is not found equally in all things (including humans), and the fact that people have various endowments of qi accounts for their ethical differences (for example, some understand and follow morality easily, while others must strive to realize moral principles). Zhu Xi 443 Zhu’s system is a modifi ed dualism because li and ch’i are interdependent, where a symbiotic relationship between the two furnishes the constitution of human beings. By defi ning humanity as the conjunction of Mencius’s concepts hsin and hsing, or the original heartmind, and then identifying hsin-hsing with li, Zhu rendered human nature as intrinsically good, yielding the four moral sprouts of loyalty, respect, obedience, and honesty, and a microcosm of the supreme ordering principle resident throughout the universe. Resembling the idea of a Buddha-mind, Zhu claimed, all humans have the potential for perfection, but evil arises through the clouding effect of li being shrouded by ch’i. For Zhu the mind of every person contains two dimensions: the mind of the Way, or the original intrinsic principled goodness that links the person directly with the tai-qi, and the human mind, or the ch’i-fi lled arena, where confl ict arises between hsin-hsing (the original mind) and carnal desires. Zhu’s method for overcoming this psychophysical imbalance consisted in the investigation of things and internal cultivation. Following the Daxue, Zhu held that the investigation of things was a fourfold process. First one must apprehend the principles of things, or affairs such as matters of conduct, human relations, and political problems, that makes them one. Second one must read and refl ect on the literature in which such principles are revealed, including the 13 Confucian Classics, and live according to an active ethical regimen that could develop to the fullest the virtue of humaneness, or jen. It is through jen that one overcomes selfi shness and partiality, enters into all things in such a way as to identify oneself fully with them, and thus unites oneself with the Mind of the universe, which is love and creativity itself. Through his discussion of the traditionally impersonal T’ien, or heaven, as an intelligent Mind or ordering will behind the universe, Zhu introduced a quasi-theistic tendency within Confucianism. Third, one must become a lover of learning and study history; here we see in Zhu a kind of positivism that affi rms, contra Buddhism, the reality of things and reinforces the traditional Confucian emphasis upon the objective validity of scholarship. Fourth, one must study one’s own experience, or perform an “exegesis of one’s life,” by making oneself aware of the principles that cause things to happen. By internal cultivation, Zhu meant that one must spend part of each day in contemplation and self-refl ection upon one’s daily behavior in light of what one learned from the Classics, and that one must develop a reverence or sense of awe toward the universe and an inner-mental attentiveness through the technique of quiet sitting (reaching stillness of thought through meditation). Although Zhu’s service at the royal court was brief, with much of it limited to lectures and memorials conveying the most general sort of advice to the emperor, he spent considerable time in local administration as a social reformer. His work included the improvement of agricultural methods and schools, the establishment of charitable granaries, famine relief, and community organizations, and the rehabilitation of local academies. As a result, Zhu suffered severe political persecution from the more conservative authorities, such that the canonical status of his teachings, albeit widely accepted by contemporary scholars, would not be offi - cially certifi ed for some years later. In the 14th century Zhu’s teachings became the offi cial orthodoxy of China (an assessment lasting until the early 20th century) and likewise became accepted in Japan and Korea as the most complete and authoritative exposition of Confucianism. Therefore, they exerted a profound infl uence on the whole cultural development of East Asia well into the modern period. See also Neo-Confucianism. Further reading: Berthrong, John H., and Evelyn Nagai Berthrong. Confucianism: A Short Introduction. Oxford: Oneworld, 2000; De Bary, William Theodore, and Irene Bloom, eds. Sources of Chinese Tradition. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999; Kim, Yung Sik. The Natural Philosophy of Chu Hsi (1130–1200). Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society, 2000; Shun, Kwong-loi, and David B. Wong, eds. Confucian Ethics: A Comparative Study of Self, Autonomy, and Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004; Taylor, Rodney Leon. The Religious Dimensions of Confucianism. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990. Kirk R. MacGregor Zimbabwe As with much of southern Africa, the earliest inhabitants of what is now the country of Zimbabwe were the nomadic San peoples, who led a life in search of game and edible vegetation about 20,000 years ago. Later the Khoi-Khoi people, pastoralists with herds, entered the region. The two cultures fused into the Khoisan people, who have shown an amazing degree of adaptation to one of the world’s most forbidding climates: the Kalahari Desert. By approximately 500 the Bantu arrived 444 Zimbabwe as the Gokomere people, climaxing the long Bantu migration from the central Sahara, which was most likely caused by the country’s turning into desert and driving out the livestock-herding Bantus. Whether this was the cause of overgrazing or an early example of global climate change is unclear. The settlements at Mapungubwe in the Limpopo River valley date from the 10th century, although archaeologists have found evidence from as remote as the third century. By 1175 Mapungubwe had become the center of a small kingdom whose population was devoted to raising livestock. Gold, however, is what drew Arab traders originally to the region. The region became involved in trade throughout the world, as John Reader notes in Africa: A Biography of the Continent, “glass beads made in India and Egypt testify to the community’s involvement in long-distance trade.” Sometime during this era of Bantu migration to the region, the great stone, cyclopean structures of Zimbabwe, Khami, and Dhlo-Dhlo were built, the Stonehenges of southern Africa. It was buildings like these, and the legends that grew up around them, that led Victorian author H. Rider Haggard to write his classic adventure novels She, King Solomon’s Mines, and Allan Quartermain. John Reader writes, “At the time of its pre-eminence in the fi fteenth century, at least 11,000 and as many as 18,000 people are said to have lived at Great Zimbabwe.” Reader notes that Zimbabwe was built between 1275 and 1550. By the 14th century the Bantus had created the Mutapa empire, which would reach to the East African coast at Mozambique. Even before this, Arab merchants were in large numbers in the coastal cities, creating an oceanic trade with what are now Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and east to India in their sailing ships, or dhows. Their voyages would be expertly timed with the monsoon seasons, which still dominate the region today. By the 16th century the Portuguese, with their far more heavily armed caravels, dominated the trade on both coasts of Africa, building castles to protect their trading interests from the African chiefs and Arabs with whom they were in competition. In 1498 Vasco da Gama reached India, thus making Portugal the fi rst of the European maritime trading empires. On his voyage down the West African coast, he had seen Arab dhows picking up the vast amount of gold that the Mutapa empire and the Shonas sent to the coast, a product of the rich gold mining that was the greatest heritage of old Zimbabwe. See also gold and salt, kingdoms of; Shona. Further reading: Haggard, H. Rider. Three Adventure Novels: She, King Solomon’s Mines, and Allan Quartermain. New York: Dover, 1951; Hourani, George F. Arab Seafaring. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979; Morris, Donald R. The Washing of the Spears: The Rise and Fall of the Zulu Nation Under Shaka and Its Fall in the Zulu War of 1879. London: Pimlico, 1994; Packenham, Thomas. The Scramble for Africa. New York: Random House, 1991; Primack, Richard B. A Primer Of Conservation Biology. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, 2000; Reader, John. Africa: A Biography of the Continent. New York: Vintage, 1997. John F. Murphy, Jr. The First Global Age 1450 to 1750 Zenger, John Peter (1697–1746) publisher, free press advocate John Peter Zenger was an American publisher, editor, and journalist. Zenger is most famous for printing the first mathematics book in the New York colony. He is also known widely for helping to establish the idea of press freedom in the colonies with the aid of attorney Andrew Hamilton. Zenger was born on October 26, 1697, in present- day Germany and immigrated to the United States at age 13 with his father and brother. During the trip, his father died, and Zenger, needing money, became an apprentice to William Bradford, who owned the Gazette. Zenger worked for Bradford for eight years before beginning his own weekly journal. In 1719, Zenger married his first wife, Mary White, and moved to Chestertown, Maryland, but she died shortly after. Zenger was left with a baby son. After returning to New York, Zenger married Anna Maulist in 1722. They had five children together. In 1725, Zenger and Bradford became business partners, but their partnership did not last. Many of the books Zenger published were religious English and Dutch texts and polemical tracts. In 1730, he also printed Venema’s Arithmetica, the first mathematics book in the New York Colony. Three years later, he was offered the opportunity to be printer and editor of the New York Weekly Journal, founded by James Alexander, a prominent lawyer. The journal expressed opposition toward the policies of the governor of the New York colony, William Cosby, who frequently imprisoned or disbarred those opposed him. Wealthy New York lawyers and politicians such as William Smith and James Alexander had Zenger publish oppositional articles in his journal. Alexander wrote many of the editorials against Cosby. Zenger himself did not write many of the articles, but he knew the potential consequences for publishing them. In 1734, as a result of his publication, Zenger was charged with seditious libel by the governor and imprisoned for nearly 10 months. During this time, Zenger’s wife ran the paper, which rallied support for Zenger’s case. Both Smith and Alexander defended Zenger for the articles that were printed in the New York Weekly Journal. When the two attorneys accused Cosby of handpicking the two judges and the jury, their right to practice law was revoked. The trial ended on August 5, 1735, when defense attorney Hamilton came to Zenger’s aid. Hamilton proved that Zenger could not be guilty of the charges because many of the accusations written in his journal about Cosby, although indeed seditious, were true. In this manner, Hamilton gained the sympathy of the court. Zenger died on September 28, 1746, poor and leaving his wife to continue the paper. His eldest son, John, took over the paper from 1748 to 1751. It is believed that Zenger is buried in an unmarked grave in New York City at the Trinity Church cemetery. Further reading: Putnam, William Lowell. John Peter Zenger and the Fundamental Freedom. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1997; Zenger, John Peter. A Brief Narrative of the Case and Tryal of John Peter Zenger, Printer of the New York Weekly Journal. Finkleman, Paul, ed. Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange Ltd., 2000. Nicole DeCarlo Zheng Chenggong (Cheng Ch’eng-Kung) (1624–1662) Chinese general, political leader Zheng Chenggong (or Koxinga) led the longest and most sustained opposition to the Qing (Ch’ing) conquest of China, first from the southern Chinese coast, later from Taiwan after he expelled the Dutch from their forts on the island. His sons held on to Taiwan against Qing forces until 1683. The Ming dynasty (1368–1644), long in decline, collapsed in 1644, when the last emperor and his family killed themselves rather than suffer capture by the rebel forces of Li Zicheng (Li Tzu-ch’eng). General Wu Sangui (Wu San-kuei), the Ming general guarding the eastern terminus of the Great Wall of China, then asked the Manchus in the northeast to help him to oust the rebels. As Wu pursued the rebels, the Manchu leader, Prince Dorgon, installed his nephew on the vacant throne as Emperor Shunzi (Shun-chih) of the Qing dynasty. While northern China was quickly pacified, Ming loyalists resisted tenaciously in the Yangzi (Yangtze) River valley and throughout southern China. Several Ming princes were elevated to be emperors or “caretaker rulers” to rally loyalists against the alien rule. The era up to 1662 is called the Southern Ming when the last Ming pretender was killed. An important supporter of the first Southern Ming emperor was Zheng Zhilong (Cheng Chihlung), who controlled a powerful mercantile empire and large fleet that operated along the southern coast of China and Japan. One of his sons by a Japanese mother so impressed the Ming prince of Tang (T’ang) who became the Longwu (Lung-wu) emperor that in 1646 he conferred on him the imperial surname Zhu (Chu) and also gave him the name Chenggong which means “successful.” He came to be known as Lord of the imperial surname, from which the Dutch derivation Koxinga comes. In China he was called Zheng Chenggong. Zheng Zhilong defected to the Manchus in 1646, but his son remained faithful to his pledge to defend the Ming. With his base in Amoy and the nearby island of Jinmen (Quemoy), Zheng gained control of Fujian (Fukien) province. He also expanded his trading empire to raise revenue for his cause. In 1658, his fleet of 1,000 ships and 130,000 soldiers raided the coast of Zhejiang (Chekiang) province. It sailed up the Yangzi River in 1659 to attack Nanjing (Nanking), the southern capital of the Ming dynasty, hoping that the action would rally Ming loyalists to rise up in rebellion. It did not happen and facing Qing counterattack he withdrew across the sea to Taiwan. There he forced the Dutch East India Company (Indonesia Batavia) to surrender its Fort Zeelandia in southern Taiwan, ending its presence on the island. Zheng died in 1662 (his father and some relatives who had surrendered to the Qing were executed in 1661 for failing to persuade him to surrender), but his son Zheng Ching continued to resist. To deprive the Zheng forces from obtaining supplies from the mainland coast the Qing had to adopt draconian measures, forcing inhabitants in Fujian to relocate at least 20 miles inland and forbidding ships to take off from southern coastal ports. In 1683, Taiwan was conquered by the Qing and made a part of Fujian province. With the fall of Taiwan the Qing dynasty completed the conquest of China. Zheng Chenggong, or Koxinga, is honored in Chinese and Japanese folklore as a brave commander. He is also respected as a Ming loyalist. See also Altan Khan; Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty, rise and zenith. Further reading: Croizier, Ralph C. Koxinga and Chinese Nationalism: History, Myth, and the Hero. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977; Struve, Lynn A. The Southern Ming, 1644–1662. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Zwingli, Ulrich (1484–1531) religious reformer Ulrich Zwingli was a Protestant reformer who lived in Zurich, Switzerland. Often called the “third reformer,” Zwingli was a contemporary of Martin Luther and John Calvin and is remembered as the reforming theologian who died on the battlefield. 416 Zheng Chenggong (Cheng Ch’eng-Kung) Zwingli was born to prosperous farming parents in Wildhaus, Switzerland, on January 1, 1484. At age 10, he was sent away for his education to Berne, Switzerland; then Vienna, Austria; and finally Basle, Switzerland, where he studied philosophy and theology. When the main priest for the town of Glarus, Switzerland, died in 1506, his relatives arranged for him to be ordained a priest and assigned to that church. As was Martin Luther, who was farther north in Germany, Zwingli was interested in the intellectual developments occurring during this time, particularly the writings of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, which he (and Luther) began reading around 1510. Erasmus advocated a return to the original languages that the Bible was written in, but also a return to the notion that divine truth most fundamentally resided in the Bible. From 1514 to 1519, Zwingli read many of the works of Erasmus and other humanists, often studying late into the night. At the same time, he devoted himself to reading the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek. Reflecting back on the time, Zwingli wrote, “In the year 1516 I began to preach in such wise that I never mounted the pulpit without taking personally to heart the Gospel for the day and explaining it with reference to Scripture alone.” In 1515, Zwingli moved to the church in nearby Einsiedeln. Shortly after moving, he had an affair with a young woman. Zwingli had been struggling with the requirement of priestly celibacy but also knew that many fellow priests were either secretly or openly living with mistresses. In 1518, the city of Zurich, Switzerland, requested Zwingli to serve in the main church of the city, the Great Minster Church. Rumors of his affair in 1515 caused some difficulty in the decision but were not a serious impediment because of the general acceptance of such behavior. Zurich was one of the principal cities in Switzerland, and Zwingli became increasingly well known and popular as a preacher and leader. Soon after Zwingli’s move to Zurich, news of the Reformation controversy had spread. Reading Luther’s writings, he found that he agreed with much of Luther’s position, particularly Luther’s approach to the Bible. From 1518 to 1522, Zwingli did not associate himself with Luther or the Lutherans but did substantial preaching on biblical texts. While such a preaching style was similar to Luther’s, it was not so unusual that it caused substantial problems. Thus Zwingli remained in good standing with the Roman Catholic Church during this time. In February 1522, some men of Zurich ignored the normal Lenten rule against eating meat on Fridays and had some sausages served to them in a public setting with Zwingli. This raised the eyebrows of some of the town leaders (there was no separation of church and state at this time). While such occurrences were not rare, Zwingli took it upon himself to preach on the principle of Christian liberty and fasting a few weeks later. Such a sermon looked suspiciously like that of a Protestant-leaning priest and was the beginning of what would brew into a major controversy. Also in March 1522, Zwingli secretly married a widow named Anna Reinhart and petitioned his bishop to allow such marriages (the petition was summarily rejected). Accused of heresy, Zwingli defended himself with clear statements about the centrality of the Bible and what he viewed as problematic practices in the church. This did not satisfy his opponents, but his response was received well by leading men of the city. After a few months of charges and countercharges, a date in January 1523 was fixed for a public debate. In preparation, Zwingli published 67 theses, which were similar in character to the Ninety-five Theses of Martin Luther. A few of the theses follow: 1. All who say that the Gospel is invalid without the confirmation of the church err and slander God. 19. Christ is the only mediator between God and ourselves. 49. I know of no greater scandal than that priests are not allowed to take lawful wives but may keep mistresses if they pay a fine. 57. The true Holy Scriptures know nothing of purgatory after this life. On January 29, 1523, Zwingli made his arguments and the town council decided to support Zwingli, calling on all priests of the territory to preach in a manner similar to that of Zwingli. A time of revolution in the churches in portions of Switzerland had begun. During the next few years, many changes occurred in church practice. Most visible were the removal of all statues and pictures from the churches. A simplified service was substituted for the Catholic Mass. Monasteries were closed, and clergy were allowed to marry. Much of what can be seen in modern-day Protestant churches (especially those coming from the Reformed tradition) had their origins in these years. While Zwingli admired Luther, he did not agree with him on many theological points. Luther had criticized Zwingli’s theology in writing and Zwingli had responded in kind. Nevertheless, some princes and political leaders in both Germany and Switzerland hoped for Zwingli, Ulrich 417 unity between these two leaders, which would support military alliances allowing them to stand against the Catholic emperor Charles V. One of these, Philip of Hesse (or Philipp of Hessen), persuaded both Luther and Zwingli to travel to Marburg in Germany for theological discussions, hoping for a signed agreement between the two leaders. Traveling secretly, Zwingli and several other Swiss reformers arrived in late September 1529. From October 1 to October 4, there were discussions and debates on the interpretation of key Bible passages from early morning till late at night. The tone was often sharp and heated, especially on the nature of the Lord’s Supper or Communion. Zwingli held that the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper were intended by Christ as a memorial, whereas Luther held that Christ was actually present in the bread and wine. The result of the Marburg Colloquy was a simple statement signed by Luther, Philip Melancthon, Zwingli, Johannes Oecolampadias, Martin Bucer, and others. The statement affirmed their agreement on the fundamentals of the Christian faith, including justification by faith, but at the end noted their continued differences regarding the nature of the Lord’s Supper. By 1531, the political situation in Switzerland had deteriorated. The Protestant cantons began a partial economic blockade of the Roman Catholic cantons, causing all to contemplate war. Many expected the emperor to send troops to aid the Catholic cantons as they contemplated war. Zwingli took an increasingly political approach to solving the difficulties, negotiating secretly with other cantons and the duke of Milan for support, as well as assuming an ever larger role in Zurich itself. By October, the Catholics began amassing troops outside Zurich in area of the Abbey of Cappel. Zurich sent out a small number of troops, but these were insufficient. At a council of war on October 11, 1531, in Zurich, Zwingli volunteered to go out to support the troops who had been struggling that day. It is unclear whether he was armed, but he certainly was dressed as a soldier. In the late afternoon, Zwingli was caught in a retreat of the Zurich soldiers as they lost a battle and was mortally wounded. See also humanism in Europe. Further reading: Lindberg, Carter, ed. European Reformations Sourcebook. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999; Locher, Gottfried W. Zwingli’s Thought: New Perspectives. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981; Rillet, Jean. Zwingli, Third Man of the Reformation. Knight, Harold, trans. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964; Schuler, Melchior, and Johannes Schulthess, eds. Zwingli’s Collected Works, 8 Vols. Zurich, 1828–1842. Bruce D. Franson Age of Revolution and Empire 1750 to 1900 Zeng Guofan (Tseng Kuo-fan) (1811–1872) Chinese statesman, general, and scholar Zeng Guofan was a leading statesman of the Tongzhi (T’ung-chih) Restoration. His leadership and policies resulted in defeating the Taiping Rebellion, the most destructive in 19th-century China. Son of a farming family from Hunan Province, Zeng Guofan was raised under a stern Confucian tradition of hard work and study, fi lial piety, and frugality. He joined the government after attaining the highest, jinshi (chin-shih) degree in 1838 and gained widespread experience in civil administration. In 1852 he obtained leave to bury his mother and mourn her death, which was subsequently canceled. Instead he was ordered to raise a militia to defend his home province from invasion by the Taiping rebels. This was necessary because the regular Qing (Ch’ing) army had proven completely inadequate. Because the Taiping Rebellion preached a pseudo-Christian theology and initially fought with crusading zeal, Zeng countered it with instilling his militia with a mission—to defend China’s Confucian heritage and traditional cultural values. To ensure the men’s esprit de corps he chose his offi cers carefully from Confucian scholars and his soldiers from sturdy farmers in his home area; their initial goal was defending their home districts. These units were called the Hunan, or Xiang, (Hsiang, another name for Hunan) Army because they all came from Hunan Province. They were known for their discipline and loyalty, despite initial setbacks, growing to 120,000 strong. Later a navy or “water force” of armed junks was formed to operate on the rivers and lakes of the Yangzi (Yangtze) River region. As the Hunan army proved itself in clearing the homeland of rebels, the court begged Zeng to proceed to neighboring Hubei (Hupei) Province. In time, Zeng’s forces spread operations to Jiangsu (Kiangsu) Zhejiang (Chekiang), and Anhui Provinces also. In 1864 Nanjing (Nanking), the Taiping capital, fell, ending the rebellion. The main credit for defeating the formidable Taiping Rebellion belonged to Zeng. He combined many admirable qualities—able administrator, careful general, and good judge of men, picking fi rst-rate assistants. His personal integrity, humility, and lifelong commitment to study made him the exemplary Confucian. He commanded few resources for the monumental task because he had no authority to collect land taxes in the provinces where he operated, but managed to complete his mission spending only 21.3 million taels of silver (each tael equals 11/3 ounces). Zeng dissolved most of the Hunan Army after 1864, spent some time unsuccessfully dealing with the Nian Rebellion, then served as governor-general of Zhili (Chihli) Province. Some 20th-century Chinese faulted Zeng with propping up the Qing dynasty, which they argued was not worth saving. But from the perspective of the time, his ideals represented the true will of the nation. The Taiping movement dominated regions in southern China but never had support in the north. Had it survived, China would at best have been partitioned. Thus in preserving the Qing dynasty Zeng helped maintain a unifi ed China. Zeng was also important for advocating Z and implementing reforms and adopting Western learning and technologies. See also Gong (K’ung), Prince. Further reading: Hail, William J. Tseng Kuo-fan and the Taiping Rebellion, With a Short Sketch of His Later Career. New York: Paragon Book Reprint Corp, 1964; Wright, Mary C. The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism: The T’ung-chih Restoration, 1862–1874. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1957. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Zho Zongtang (Tso Tsung-t’ang) (1812–1885) Chinese military leader and statesman Zho Zongtang was from a scholarly family of moderate means in Hunan Province. He obtained the juren (chu-jen) degree, the second highest in the examination system, then studied geography, agriculture and military strategy and experimented in farming, specializing in sericulture. Between 1852 until his death he devoted himself to military affairs, winning high distinction in serving China. In 1860 Zho joined the staff of Zeng Guofan (Tseng Kuo-fan), China’s leader in fi ghting the Taiping Rebellion, raising and training 5,000 volunteers of his native Hunan braves to serve in Jiangxi (Kiangsi) and Anhui Provinces, engaging in more than 20 battles. He was appointed governor-general of Zhejiang (Chekiang) and Fujian (Fukien) Provinces, expelling the Taiping rebels from both and implementing programs that restored prosperity. They included opening schools, printing offi ces, and promoting sericulture and cotton culture. After the suppression of the Taiping Rebellion, Zho was appointed governorgeneral of Shaanxi (Shensi) and Gansu (Kansu) Provinces in northwestern China. He collaborated with his colleagues Zeng Kuofan and Li Hongzhang (Li Hung-chang) in fi rst putting down the Nian Rebellion, then undertaking the suppression of the Muslim rebellions, fi rst pacifying Shaanxi in 1869, followed by bringing peace to Gansu in 1874. He then made important reforms in those provinces that included the prohibition of opium poppy culture, promoting cotton growing and manufacture of cotton and woolen cloths, utilizing the spare time of his soldiers in agriculture and reforestation. Zho next obtained court support for raising loans for the reconquest of Xinjiang (Sinkiang) or Chinese Turkestan, much of which had been under the control of Yakub Beg, a Muslim who curried favor with Russia, Great Britain, and the Ottoman Empire by promising them infl uence should he succeed in establishing an independent state. A careful campaigner who had sure knowledge of geography and logistics, Zho defeated the Xinjiang Muslims in 1877. Yakub committed suicide. The combination of the collapse of the Xinjiang Muslim rebellion thanks to Zho’s generalship and the negotiation skills of Chinese diplomat Zeng Jize (Chitse) (son of Zeng Guofan), Russia agreed to withdraw its troops from the Ili Valley in Xinjiang in the Treaty of St. Petersburg in 1881. Xinjiang became a province of China in 1884. Zho was appointed governorgeneral of Jiangnan (Kiangnan) and Jiangxi (Kiangsi) in 1882, was put in charge of military affairs when war loomed with France in 1884, but he was suffering from ill health and died shortly after. Zho was a great military leader of the Tongzhi (T’ung-chih) Restoration and Self- Strengthening Movement who struggled successfully to defeat China’s domestic rebellions and protect its territorial integrity against Western imperialism. Both he and his wife, Zhou Yituan (Chou I-tuan), were accomplished in literature, she leaving published collections of verses, and he of offi cial and literary works. See also Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty in decline. Further reading: Fairbank, John K., and Kwang-ching Liu, eds. The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 11, Part 2, Late Ch’ing, 1800–1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980; Hummel, Arthur W., ed. Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period (1644–1912). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Press, 1944. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Zionism and Theodor Herzl (1860–1904) father of Jewish nationalism Theodor Herzl is considered the father of modern Zionism, or Jewish nationalism. Born in Budapest, Hungary, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Herzl attended university in Vienna. As a young journalist, he covered the Dreyfus affair in Paris. This noted case of anti-Semitism in liberal France, coupled with the periodic violent pogroms against Jews in eastern Europe and Russia, convinced Herzl that anti-Semitism was an inherent evil in Western civilization. He concluded that the only solution to the so-called Jewish 454 Zho Zongtang (Tso Tsung-t’ang) question was the establishment of a Jewish state that would be as much Jewish as France was French or Italy was Italian. He expanded on the need for a Jewish state in his books Der Judenstaat (Jewish State, 1896) and Altneuland (Old New Land, 1902). The fi rst Zionist Congress met in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897, and Herzl was elected president of World Zionist Organization (WZO). Within the WZO there was considerable debate over the question of where the Jewish state should be. Herzl was initially in favor of accepting offers by the British for territory in Argentina and present-day Uganda for a Jewish state. Other Zionists were convinced that for religious, historic, and cultural reasons only the territory of ancient Israel was a realistic location upon which to establish a modern Jewish state, and the establishment of a modern state of Israel in Palestine became the offi cial Zionist policy. Zionists dreamt of the renaissance of Jewish life through their physical labor on the land. With fi nancial support from the Rothschild family, the WZO bought land in Palestine, often from absentee landowners. Some early Zionists were socialists who established communes, or kibbutzim, or cooperatives, moshavim. Ber Borochov sought to fuse Marxism and Zionism and was one of the founders of the Zionist left. Zionists encouraged Jews throughout the world to make aliyah, or to move to Palestine. The Zionist state was to grant automatic citizenship to all Jews who sought to live there. The fi rst Zionist settlement in Palestine, Patah Tikva, was established north of Jaffa in 1878; although it was soon abandoned because of malarial marshes. Once the marshes were drained, settlers returned in 1878. Other Zionist settlements were created during the 1880s. From 1881 to 1903 the fi rst wave of Jewish settlers to Palestine was mostly from Russia. By the outbreak of World War I in 1914 there were about 59 Jewish colonies with some 12,000 people in Palestine. Zionists also debated what language should be adopted by the Jewish state. Some favored Yiddish, which was spoken by many Jews in eastern Europe where Zionism was most prevalent. Others successfully argued that Hebrew, the language of ancient Israel, should be the language of the state. Like Latin, Hebrew had been used for religious rites or for reading of sacred texts, but it had not been in common use for hundreds of years. It therefore needed to be modernized for contemporary usage; for his work in revitalizing Hebrew, Eliezer Ben Yehuda (Eierzer Perlmann) was considered the father of modern Hebrew. Like Ben Yehuda, many Zionists adopted Hebrew names rather than those commonly used in Europe. Initially the Zionist movement had little support from Jews in Western nations such as France or the United States, where anti-Semitism, while by no means nonexistent, was not as virulent as in eastern Europe. Similarly, Orthodox Jews, who formed the small percentage of the Jewish population in Palestine at the time, opposed the creation of a modern Jewish state for religious reasons; they argued that they should not interfere in the divine plan by entering the political fi eld. Zionists also met with mounting opposition from the indigenous Palestinian Arab population. The struggle of two separate nationalisms—Zionism and Palestinian Arabism—for control over the same territory laid the foundation for the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian confl ict. To fulfi ll the dream of a Jewish state, Herzl and others recognized the need for outside support. He approached Germany, Italy, the pope, and Great Britain to secure their approval, but met with little success. Herzl even traveled to meet with the Ottoman sultan in Istanbul. Although it is not clear that Herzl ever met face to face with the sultan, it is known that the sultan responded to Zionist requests, saying that “he was not in the business of selling his right arm,” but that Jews were welcome to live in Palestine like other minorities within the Ottoman Empire. Herzl died in 1904, and Chaim Weizmann was selected as the new president of the WZO. Following in Herzl’s footsteps, Weizmann worked tirelessly to secure outside support for the Zionist cause. Further reading: Aviniri, Shlomo. The Making of Modern Zionism: The Intellectual Origins of a Jewish State. New York: Basic Books, 1981; Elon, Amos. Herzl. New York: Schocken Books, 1986; Herzl, Theodor. The Jewish State. New York: Dover Publications, 1988; Levin, N. Gordon. The Zionist Movement in Palestine and World Politics, 1880– 1918. London and Lexington, MA: Heath, 1974. Janice J. Terry Crisis and Achievement 1900 to 1950 Zaghlul, Sa’d (1860–1927) and Safia Zaghlul (d. 1946) Egyptian nationalist leaders Sa’d Zaghlul was the founder and leader of the Wafd Party, the leading nationalist party in Egypt after World War i. Zaghlul was born in the Delta area and was a scholarship student at al-Azhar University. He was influenced by the reformers Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad Abdu, with whom he worked on the Egyptian Gazette. He became a lawyer and worked as a judge before being appointed minister of education in 1906. Zaghlul’s abilities and hard work earned the praise of Lord Cromer, the British de facto governor of Egypt. Zaghlul was elected to the legislative assembly and served as vice president of the assembly from 1913 to its closure by the British at the outbreak of World War I in 1914. A gifted orator, Zaghlul was an outspoken critic of the government and an ardent nationalist. In 1896 he married Safia Fehmy, the daughter of Mustafa Fehmy, a wealthy aristocrat and former prime minister. The marriage was childless, but Safia became a close confidante and a supporter of her husband’s political work. Their large villa in Cairo became known as Beit al-Umma, or House of the People. Sa’d Zaghlul was also politically close to Makram Ebeid, a Coptic Christian, whom he called his “adopted son.” Encouraged by Allied statements regarding selfdetermination and freedom, Zaghlul gathered together a group of like-minded Egyptian nationalists to form a delegation, or Wafd, shortly before the end of World War I. The Wafd presented its demands for complete independence to Reginald Wingate, the British high commissioner, who forwarded their request to London. However, the British, who had no intentions of relinquishing control over Egypt, refused to meet or negotiate with Zaghlul. As national unrest increased throughout Egypt, Zaghlul and several other Wafdists were arrested and deported to Malta in 1919. The arrests led to a fullscale revolution that the British put down by force. In her husband’s absence Safia Zaghlul became a leading spokesperson for the Wafd and was called Um Misr (mother of Egypt). She addressed striking students from the balcony of her home and in 1919 led the first political demonstration of women in the Middle East. In the face of unending demonstrations and strikes, the British were forced to release Sa’d Zaghlul, who then traveled to the Paris Peace Conference and London but failed to secure Egyptian independence. Zaghlul was a national hero in Egypt, and the Wafd was the dominant political party. In 1922 Britain ended the protectorate over Egypt and declared it independent, but it was symbolic rather than actual independence. When nationalist discontent continued, Zaghlul was deported to the Seychelles via Aden. More demonstrations predictably ensued, and he was freed after more than a year in captivity. Zaghlul won the open and free 1924 elections with a large majority, but he was forced to resign following the assassination of Sir Lee Stack, the British sirdar (ruler) of Sudan, in Cairo several months later. Z Sa’d Zaghlul died in 1927 after a short illness. Safi a assumed a more important role in the Wafd. As Wafdists met to discuss who should replace Sa’d Zaghlul, Safi a Zaghlul announced that she intended to withdraw from the political arena but supported Mustafa Nahhas to assume leadership of the party. With Safi a Zaghlul’s support, Nahhas became the Wafd’s second president. See also Egyptian Revolution (1919). Further reading: Ahmed, J. M. The Intellectual Origins of Egyptian Nationalism. London: Oxford University Press, 1960; Darwin, John. “Sa’d Zaghlul and the British.”In The Chatham House Version and other Middle-Eastern Studies, Elie Kedourie, ed. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1984. Janice J. Terry Zapata, Emiliano (1879–1919) Mexican revolutionary leader Ranking high in the pantheon of Latin American heroes, the Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata gained widespread popular acclaim for his uncompromising demand for “Land and Liberty” (Tierra y Libertad) and for his courageous, principled, and shrewd leadership of his Zapatista army during the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920). During the revolution and after, Zapata came to symbolize the hopes and aspirations of Mexico’s poor and downtrodden in their struggle for land, dignity, and social justice. Zapata embodied the agrarian and Indian impulses of the revolution. Born in the Indian village of Anenecuilco, Morelos, to smallholding parents Gabriel and Cleofas Salazar Zapata, in 1909 he was elected president of the village council, a rare honor for a man only 30 years old. These were troubled times in Morelos. In the previous decades under the presidency of Porfi rio Díaz, the process of capitalist transformation had led to growing landlessness and poverty among the village’s nearly 400 residents, as it had across Morelos and much of the rest of Mexico. When wealthy liberal reformer Francisco Madero announced his Plan of San Luis Potosí on November 20, 1910, calling for “no-reelection” of the dictator Díaz, Zapata did not immediately endorse the plan. Within a few months, however, he allied with the Maderistas, achieving several victories against federalist troops in Morelos. After Madero’s forces toppled the Díaz regime, Zapata insisted that lands stolen in previous decades be restored to their rightful owners. Madero balked, requiring demobilization of the Zapatista forces. When one of Madero’s generals, Victoriano Huerta, launched a campaign against the Zapatistas in Morelos in August 1911, Zapata was infuriated. He soon withdrew support for Madero. Henceforth, Zapata pursued an independent course, fi ghting for what he understood to be the revolution’s core issues: land and liberty for the poor, landless, and oppressed. In November 1911 the Zapatistas issued their famous Plan of Ayala, which guided Zapata’s army for the remainder of the revolution. Excoriating Madero 436 Zapata, Emiliano Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata fought against the corrupt leaders of his government. as a tyrant and traitor, the plan declared that “the fi elds, timber, and water which the landlords, científi cos, or bosses have usurped, the pueblos or citizens who have the title corresponding to those properties will immediately enter into possession of that real estate of which they have been despoiled by the bad faith of our oppressors. . . .” The Plan of Ayala met fi erce resistance from both Madero and the Huerta regime that followed Madero’s overthrow in February 1913. The Zapatistas became the most powerful revolutionary force in southern Mexico after 1911, at one point dominating not only Morelos but Puebla, Oaxaca, and Guerrero states. When “Constitutionalist” leader Venustiano Carranza seized power in August 1914, Zapata and Francisco “Pancho” Villa allied against him. Three times Zapata’s forces occupied Mexico City. After most of the fi ghting had subsided, Zapata returned to his home state, where he was assassinated by Carranza’s emissaries at the Chinameca hacienda on April 10, 1919. His name and legacy remain popularly revered throughout Mexico, as seen most recently in the Zapatista National Liberation Army in the mostly Maya Indian state of Chiapas, whose rebellion against the Mexican government, launched in 1994, still simmered more than 13 years later. Further reading: Brunk, Samuel. Emiliano Zapata: Revolution and Betrayal in Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1995; Warman, Arturo. “We Come To Object”: The Peasants of Morelos and the National State. Translated by Stephen K. Ault. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980; Womack, John, Jr., Zapata and the Mexican Revolution. New York: Vintage, 1968. Michael J. Schroeder Zelaya, José Santos (1853–1919) Nicaraguan leader The president of Nicaragua from 1893 to 1909, José Santos Zelaya was leader of the Liberal Party in Nicaragua for many years and a critic of U.S. foreign policy in the region. Zelaya was born on November 1, 1853, and on May 20, 1893, he became one of the three members of the junta, with Joaquín Zavala and Eduardo Montiel, that took power in Nicaragua, ending the presidency of Roberto Sacasa. The conservatives had taken over after the defeat of William Walker, and prominent families had rotated the presidency around a small oligarchy largely occupied with plans for a canal through Nicaragua, at the time thought of as easier than the route running through Panama. The overthrow of the government in Nicaragua in May 1893 was also ammunition for people supporting the Panama route. On June 1 Salvador Machado became the acting president, followed on July 16 by Joaquín Zavala. On July 31 Zelaya became president, and, inspired by the Mexican revolutionary Benito Juárez, he tried to carry out some of the measures introduced by Juárez in Mexico in the 1860s and 1870s. This led to a new constitution for the country on December 10, 1893. This for the fi rst time unequivocally separated church and state. The supporters of Zelaya quickly became the Zelayistas, the name of his political movement. In Washington, D.C., lobbyists supporting the canal through Panama painted Zelaya as an extremist radical bent on ending contact with the United States. In fact, Zelaya was a keen social reformer and anxious to make up for the previous decades, when little money had been spent on the infrastructure of the country. Zelaya immediately increased spending on public education and on erecting government buildings, roads, and bridges. Political rights were also extended to all citizens of the country, including women, who were allowed to vote. Civil marriages and divorce were both made legal, and strong moves to end bonded servitude were enacted. Zelaya oversaw the paving of the streets of Managua, Nicaragua’s capital, and the erection of street lights. In January 1903 Zelaya was the fi rst living Nicaraguan to appear on one of that country’s postage stamps, commemorating the 10th anniversary of the revolt against Sacaza. Zelaya encouraged foreign trade but sought relations with more countries than just the United States and Mexico. An early foreign policy problem for Zelaya was not dealing with Britain. For the previous 300 years, British settlers, descendants of Britons, and former British-owned slaves had been settling on the Mosquito Coast—Nicaragua’s Caribbean coast. Britain had ceded sovereignty in 1860, but the area was an autonomous part of Nicaragua. Zelaya managed to get the area formally incorporated into the Republic of Nicaragua in 1894, but until 1912 the area continued to use a different currency. Good relations with Britain resulted, and Zelaya even brought over British businessmen to survey for a canal through Nicaragua. In February 1896 the fi rst coup attempt to overthrow Zelaya failed. It ensured that he was more careful about personal security. Another coup attempt Zelaya, José Santos 437 by soldiers in 1904 failed, and in 1905 the Rebellion of the Great Lake was also unsuccessful. In 1906 Zelaya decided not to send delegates to the San José Conference, which was being held in Costa Rica to discuss ways of maintaining peace in Central America. Instead, Zelaya was keen on pushing forward with his plans for a united Central America. Zelaya’s idea did not include Costa Rica and was to be a merging of Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Honduras. The only concrete results were the establishment of a Central American Bureau in Guatemala City and a teacher training institute in San José, Costa Rica—both places outside Zelaya’s planned country. Nicaraguan soldiers invaded Honduras, overthrowing its president, Policarpo Bonilla, and then were involved in plans to start a revolution in El Salvador. The United States and Mexico intervened, and at the Washington Conference of 1907 Zelaya and the presidents of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras all signed an agreement whereby they pledged themselves to the maintenance of peace in their region. Zelaya, still worried about the potential domination of Nicaragua’s economy by U.S. interests, believed that the U.S. government was encouraging a revolt in the east of the country. By this time U.S. cartoonists were caricaturing him; he was an easy target with his penetrating eyes and elegantly twirled moustache. Zelaya moved against some U.S. lumber and mining companies, either canceling their concessions or reducing the scope of their activities. The U.S. chargé d’affaires in Managua was recalled in 1909, when Zelaya made moves to end a lumber concession that had been granted to a Massachusetts-based company, G. D. Emory. Some Nicaraguan conservatives did try to stage a putsch to get rid of Zelaya, hiring U.S. mercenaries. These forces were led by one of Zelaya’s former allies, Juan José Estrada. Zelaya managed to overcome the rebels, but he made the tactical mistake of executing the U.S. mercenaries. As a result, the United States broke off diplomatic relations with Nicaragua, which led to the collapse of Zelaya’s government. On December 1, 1909, U.S. secretary of state Philander Knox sent a letter to the Nicaraguan ambassador in Washington pledging U.S. government action against the Nicaraguan government. Zelaya offered to compromise and in a telegram to Taft on December 4 said he was prepared to resign and go into exile if that would solve the problem. He resigned on December 21, and in the following year he escaped to Mexico. In Nicaragua his supporters opposed the U.S. marines who were sent into the country, some under Benjamin F. Zeledon, and in 1912 waged a small-scale guerrilla war inspired by the Mexican Revolution. In exile Zelaya wrote The Revolution in Nicaragua and the United States. The largest province in the country, along the east coast of Nicaragua (formerly the Mosquito Coast), was named Zelaya after the president, who died on May 17, 1919, in New York City. See also Panama Canal. Further reading: Stansifer, Charles L. “José Santos Zelaya: A New Look at Nicaragua’s Liberal Dictator.” In Revista Interamericana (v. 7, Fall 1977); Teplitz, Benjamin I. “The Political and Economic Foundations of Modernization in Nicaragua: The Administration of José Santos Zelaya 1893–1909.” Ph.D. thesis, Howard University, 1973. Justin Corfi eld Zhu De (Chu Teh) (1886–1976) Chinese Communist military leader Zhu De was the founder of the Red Army (later, People’s Liberation Army) and its de facto leader in the resistance against Japan and in the Chinese civil war against the Nationalists during the 1930s and 1940s. He played an important role in the development of a theory of guerrilla warfare. In the People’s Republic of China after 1949 he served as vice chair and later chair of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. Zhu De was born the son of a wealthy landlord in Sichuan (Szechwan) Province. He received a classical Chinese education and obtained a degree in 1904. After studies in Chengdu (Chengtu) and practice as a sports teacher, he visited the military academy in Kunming from 1908 to 1911. Infl uenced by revolutionaries, he joined the army of General Cai E (Tsai Ao) shortly before the 1911 revolution and participated in the overthrow of the Qing (Chi’ng) government in Yunnan province. In 1916 he reached the rank of general, commanded a brigade of the Yunnan army, and took up the habit of opium smoking. In 1919 Zhu changed his life radically. Probably he was infl uenced by the May Fourth Movement, when Chinese students demonstrated against the Treaty of Versailles. Zhu then managed to get rid of his opium addiction in a French hospital in Shanghai. In addition, he started to study socialist theory and traveled to Europe in 1922. After a short stay in France he went to 438 Zhu De (Chu Teh) Germany and studied at Göttingen University in 1924– 25. In Germany he also met Zhou Enlai (Chou En-lai) and joined the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Soon the German authorities became suspicious about his political activities. He was arrested twice and expelled in 1925. Zhu went to Moscow and after some studies returned to China. After Chiang Kai-shek ended the alliance with the Communists in April 1927, Zhu took part in the Nanchang Uprising. After its failure he joined Mao Zedong and his partisans in the Jinggang Mountains in Jiangxi (Kiangsi) province. In the following years the Communist guerrillas were able to hold and even expand their areas until they were forced on the Long March in 1934. During the Long March Zhu separated from Mao’s troops and joined the western wing of the Red Army under Zhang Guotao (Chang Kuo-tao). Zhu arrived with his remaining soldiers at Mao’s newly established base of operations in Sha’anxi (Shensi) province in late 1936, where he again became supreme commander of the Communist forces. After the United Front of the Communists with the Kuomintang against Japanese aggression was concluded in August 1937, Zhu formally became a commander in the Nationalist army. In reality, the Red Army led a very independent war of resistance against the Japanese occupation until August 1945. Zhu made good use of his experience in guerrilla warfare, and it is likely that Mao’s writings on the theory of guerrilla war were partially developed by Zhu. Changing to a more conventional style of warfare after the Japanese surrender—equipped mostly with Japanese matériel—Zhu’s army was victorious in the following civil war against the Kuomintang armies. In addition to his military position, Zhu also served on the CCP’s central committee in 1930 and as a member of the Politburo in 1934. In 1945 he was made vice chair of the CCP. Zhu stepped down as commander in chief in 1954 and became vice chairman of the state council. He became chair of the standing committee of the National People’s Congress in 1959. Like so many prominent leaders of the CCP, Zhu was denounced by Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution in 1966. He had to step down and was only restored to his positions in 1971. Zhu De died in 1976. Further reading: Klein, Donald W., and Anne B. Clark. Biographic Dictionary of Chinese Communism, 1921–1965. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971; Lynch, Michael. China: From Empire to People’s Republic, 1900– 1949. London: Hodder Murray, 1996; Shum, Kui-Kwong. Zhu-De. Brisbane, Australia: University of Queensland Press, 1982. Cord Eberspaecher Zionism From the beginning of the 20th century to the establishment of Israel in 1948, the World Zionist Organization (WZO) struggled to create a Jewish state in Palestine. After Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, died in 1904, Chaim Weizmann assumed leadership of the WZO for most of the following three decades. A moderate, Weizmann had excellent connections among ranking politicians and diplomats in Britain as well as continental Europe. The WZO sought to gain support among Jews in the diaspora (Jews scattered throughout the world), to increase Jewish immigration to Palestine, to obtain funding for the purchase of land in Palestine, and to provide assistance for new Jewish settlers. The Right of Return, whereby all Jews in the diaspora could, if they wished, become automatic citizens of the Jewish state, was a cornerstone of the Zionist movement. Jews were encouraged to make aliyah (immigration) to Palestine and to settle there permanently. The ingathering of Jews attracted mostly Jews from eastern Europe and Russia, where anti- Semitism was often the most virulent. There were several waves of Jewish immigration into Palestine. The fi rst, from 1881 to 1903, was composed mostly of Russian Jews; the second, from 1903 to 1914, attracted mostly eastern European Jews who sought to create a socialist state along Marxist lines. Another major wave of immigration occurred in the aftermath of the Holocaust and World War II. Not all Jews supported the WZO. Orthodox Jews opposed Zionism as a political movement counter to divine will. Some Zionists in Palestine also disliked the movement because they saw it as dominated by socialists and liberals who wanted to use only Jewish labor in businesses and farms in Palestine, whereas they employed Arab labor. In 1929 Weizmann led the creation of the Jewish Agency, based in Palestine, as an adjunct to the WZO. By virtue of his leadership of the WZO, Weizmann also became head of the Jewish Agency. However, he gradually lost control of the Jewish Agency as Zionists in Palestine secured key leadership positions. Gradually, Zionism 439 David Ben-Gurion and the Labor Party became the dominant forces in Palestine, while Weizmann continued to represent the international Zionist movement. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, providing public support by Britain for a Jewish homeland, was a major step toward the creation of a Jewish state. After the war the British incorporated the Balfour Declaration into their new mandate over Palestine. During the mandate, from the 1920s to the 1940s, the Jewish population in Palestine increased from less than 20 percent to approximately one-third of the total population. By the end of the war, Jews owned about 17 to 22 percent of the total arable land in Palestine. Zionists aimed to create a renaissance of pioneering Jews who would work their own land. Moshavim (cooperatives) were established, and the Jewish National Fund, which was responsible for land purchases, gave plots of land to settlers who paid rent for a hereditary lease. Land could not be sold, and by the 1930s settlers had to work the land themselves. The policy of Jewish-only workers further separated the Jewish and Palestinian Arab populations. On collective farms, or kibbutzim, property was owned communally, decisions were made in democratic “town meetings,” and work and resources were shared equally. Many kibbutzim were established along egalitarian lines between men and women, although women often worked primarily in the traditional jobs of childcare and cooking. Although the Zionist movement sought to increase the amount of land owned and worked by Jews, the majority of new immigrants settled in the urban coastal areas, the Tiberias region, Hebron/Safed, and Jerusalem. In 1909 Tel Aviv was founded as the fi rst Jewish city. A Hebrew school system was established, and Hebrew was to be the language of the new state. The Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa (Technion) was created in 1912, and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem was begun in 1918. A Women’s Zionist Organization Jewish immigrants on their way to a settlement in Palestine in 1946. The World Zionist Organization sought to gain support among Jews in the diaspora to increase legal and illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine. 440 Zionism supported the Hadassah Medical Organization, which provided health services. In 1920 the Histadrut was established in an attempt to unify workers into a single labor organization; David Ben-Gurion became its primary spokesperson. Although more conservative workers’ movements evolved, the Histadrut became the major Zionist force in Palestine. In 1919 the Haganah was established to defend Jewish settlements against Palestinian Arab attacks. It evolved into the Israel Defense Force (IDF) after Israeli independence. The Labor Party under David Ben-Gurion became the major political party. However, the Zionist movement was not a monolith, and other more radical parties also evolved. Ze’ev Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880–1940) founded the Revisionist Movement, which had a maximalist position regarding the future borders of the Jewish state. The Revisionists claimed all of historic Israel including land on both sides of the Jordan River. In contrast, Ben-Gurion and the majority of Zionists were willing to accept the territory west of the Jordan River for the Jewish state. Jabotinsky split from the mainstream Zionist movement in 1935 to establish the New Zionist Organization. Jabotinsky argued that Zionists would have to use violence to establish a Jewish state because the Palestinian Arabs would not willingly cede their national rights over territory they considered theirs. The Revisionist youth movement, Betar, attracted young Jews, especially in eastern Europe. Political differences over tactics and goals also resulted in several groups breaking away from Jabotinsky. A Revisionist underground military group, the Irgun Zvei Leumi (Etzel), was founded by David Raziel and, in retaliation for attacks on Jewish settlements, used terrorist tactics (attacks on civilians) against Palestinian Arabs as early as 1937. Members of the Irgun also opposed the liberal economic programs espoused by Labor Zionists and most members of the Haganah. After Raziel was killed assisting the British in crushing a revolt in Iraq in 1941, Menachem Begin became the Irgun’s leader. In spite of their opposition to the mandate and British policies limiting endeavors to create a Jewish state in Palestine, the Haganah and mainstream Zionists led by David Ben-Gurion supported Britain in the struggle against the Nazis during World War II. Britain somewhat reluctantly accepted some Jewish volunteers from Palestine into its fi ghting forces. More radical Zionists argued that Britain was also the enemy. Avraham Stern led a splinter group that adopted an extremely anti-British position in 1940. This group, known as the Stern Gang after its founder or as Freedom Fighters for Israel (LEHI), assassinated Lord Moyne, the deputy British minister of state for the Middle East, while he visited Cairo in 1944. The assassins were caught, tried, and, after considerable pressure from Britain, executed by the Egyptian government. LEHI also killed some Jewish opponents in Palestine. The Haganah condemned the Stern Gang, and many of its members, including Stern, were killed or imprisoned by the British. In the midst of World War II, the WZO met at the Biltmore Hotel in New York City in the fall of 1941 to decide on the future direction for the Zionist movement. In the so-called Biltmore Program Zionists wisely agreed to shift the focus of their political propaganda and recruitment from Great Britain and the rest of Europe to the United States. Zionist leaders worked throughout the war to publicize the need for a Jewish state and to gather political and popular support in the United States for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. During the war leading Zionists visited both President Franklin Roosevelt and Vice President Harry S. Truman to brief them on the need for a Jewish state and to secure their support. By the time the British withdrew from Palestine in 1948, Jews had created the infrastructure for an independent state complete with political parties, economic institutions including labor unions, schools, hospitals, cultural centers, and a military force. The Zionist dream for a Jewish state came to fruition with the establishment of Israel in 1948. See also British mandate in Palestine. Further reading: Berkowitz, Michael. Western Jewry and the Zionist Project, 1914–1931. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997; Shapira, Anita. Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881–1948. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992; Sternhell, Zeev. The Founding Myths of Israel: Nationalism, Socialism, and the Making of the Jewish State. Translated by David Maisel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998. Janice J. Terry The Contemporary World 1950 to the Present Zapatistas In the heavily Mayan Indian state of Chiapas in southeastern Mexico, on New Year’s Day, 1994, a group of rebels carrying automatic rifles, axes, and sledgehammers, wearing black ski masks, and calling themselves the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) proclaimed themselves in rebellion against the Mexican government. The uprising was timed to coincide with the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Mexico, the United States, and Canada. The Mexican government responded by sending some 25,000 soldiers into Chiapas, armed with automatic weapons, tanks, and helicopters. On January 12 the government declared a cease-fire, saying it would respond with force only if attacked. By this time around 150 people had been reported killed, most by government security forces. Talks between the EZLN and government negotiators began on February 20. The Zapatista spokesperson, who called himself Sub-Commander Marcos, soon became an international celebrity. In what has been called the world’s first postmodern rebellion—waged against not only a national government but an international trade agreement, its principal weapons not guns but words, grassroots organizing, and the Internet, and launched not with the goal of military victory but of gaining indigenous rights and national and international solidarity—the Zapatista movement continued into the 21st century, posing a thorny challenge to the Mexican state and local powerholders. In 2007 the rebellion still simmered, centered in dozens of Zapatista “autonomous municipalities” in the heart of the Chiapas Lacondón rain forest, central highlands, and northern zones. Home to some of the oldest civilizations on Earth, Mexico’s Maya zones have seen a long series of protest movements against local, regional, national, and imperial authorities that stretch back to the initial Spanish invasion in 1522 and continued with the Tzeltal Revolt of 1712, the Jacinto Canek Revolt of 1761, the Caste War of Yucatán from 1848 and its aftermath, and subsequent revolts and resistance movements. After the Mexican Revolution (1910–20) and the establishment of a “one party democracy” under the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) in 1929, Chiapas remained one of the poorest and most marginalized states in the Mexican States United (Estados Unidos Mexicanos). In 1994 its 3.5 million people, spread over some 76,000 square kilometers, included large concentrations of Maya Indians, some two-thirds living in rural areas and divided into numerous ethno-linguistic groups, including Tzeltales, Tzotziles, Choles, Zoques, and Tojolabales. At least half of the indigenous people did not have access to potable water and were illiterate; two-thirds did not have sewage systems; and 90 percent had little or no income. In 1992 President Carlos Salinas and the PRI-dominated houses of Congrttess approved farreaching changes to Article 27 of the 1917 Constitution, effectively privatizing the ejidos (collective village lands) that had been a cornerstone of Mexico’s postrevolutionary agrarian reform laws. The terms of NAFTA further accelerated decades-long trends toward privatization Z and the opening of the Mexican economy to transnational corporations and unfettered trade. The rebels named their army after Emiliano Zapata, a village leader from the state of Morelos and one of the leading figures in the Mexican Revolution, whose honesty, rectitude, and uncompromising demands for “land and liberty” made him a heroic figure among the country’s poor and Indian population. The Zapatista spokesperson, Sub-Commander Marcos, remains an enigmatic figure. Never photographed without his black ski mask, he is thought to be Rafael Sebastián Guillén Vicente, a Jesuit-educated former professor of philosophy at the Metropolitan Autonomous University in Mexico City who began working and organizing among the Maya of Chiapas in the mid-1980s. His name is presumed to be an acronym for the municipalities first taken over by the rebel army (Las Margaritas, Amatenango del Valle, La Realidad, Comitán, Ocosingo, and San Cristóbal de Las Casas). He is called the group’s “sub-commander” because the EZLN is based on grassroots participatory democracy, and he is therefore considered not the group’s leader but a subordinate to the people in whose name he speaks. Peace talks between representatives of the EZLN and the national government began at San Andrés Larrainzar in April 1995. On February 17, 1996, the parties agreed to the terms of the Accords on Indigenous Rights and Culture, known as the San Andrés Accords. The Accords called for revision of Article Four of the 1917 Constitution to require the Mexican state to “recognize the right of Indian peoples to freely determine their own forms of social, economic, political, and cultural organization.” In essence, the accords would have permitted an autonomous parallel state and political structure within Mexico, including an independent judicial system based on indigenous practices. Meanwhile, the military buildup by the Mexican army and security forces in Chiapas intensified as the government waged a low-intensity war against EZLN forces throughout the region. Local paramilitaries, growing out of the “white guards” (guardias blancas) organized by the region’s cattle and landowning oligarchy and active since the early 1980s, also stepped up their attacks against EZLN activists and supporters. New anti-EZLN paramilitaries formed, including the Indigenous Revolutionary Anti-Zapatista Movement (MIRA) and the Red Mask. Attacks, assaults, and human rights abuses against EZLN supporters mounted. On December 22, 1997, the Red Mask massacred 45 people at Acteal, including 21 women and 15 children. In this context of growing militarization and violence, in August 1996 the EZLN sponsored an International Conference for Humanity Against Neoliberalism (called by Marcos the “Intergalactic Encuentro”), attended by intellectuals, activists, and celebrities from around the world. In January 1997 President Ernesto Zedillo proposed a watered-down version of the San Andrés Accords that eliminated the provisions recognizing indigenous rights. The EZLN rejected the revisions, and henceforth the accords remained a dead letter. propaganda offensive The EZLN’s propaganda offensive continued in marches, demonstrations, solidarity agreements with various sectors of civil society, and a flurry of communiqués and declarations from Sub-Commander Marcos. In March 2001 Zapatista commanders headed a caravan to Mexico City, where they rallied with supporters to demand legislation implementing the original San Andrés accords. Instead, the government passed a law denounced by indigenous rights groups. The Zapatistas responded with a four-year period of “strategic silence,” which they broke in June 2005 with their “Sixth Declaration of the Lacandón Jungle,” inaugurating a series of grassroots meetings and a national tour, the “Other Campaign,” to form a coalition of left groups. Typical of the EZLN’s approach to waging war was the assault by the “Zapatista Air Force” against a Mexican military installation in January 2000, in which rebels launched hundreds of paper airplanes into the camp, each bearing handwritten messages such as: “Soldiers, we know that poverty has made you sell your lives and souls. I also am poor, as are millions. But you are worse off, for defending our exploiter Zedillo and his group of moneybags.” Part of a broader resurgence of indigenous political organizing in Mexico, Central America, and the Andes, in 2007 the EZLN controlled over 30 autonomous municipalities, while the struggle in Chiapas and beyond showed no signs of abating. Further reading: Harvey, Neil. The Chiapas Rebellion: The Struggle for Land and Democracy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998; Weinberg, Bill. Homage to Chiapas: The New Indigenous Struggles in Mexico. London: Verso, 2000; Womack, John, Jr. Rebellion in Chiapas: An Historical Reader. New York: New Press, 1999. Michael J. Schroeder 474 Zapatistas Zhou Enlai (Chou En-lai) (1898–1976) Chinese communist leader Zhou Enlai came from a gentry family, studied in Tianjin (Tientsin), and participated in the student movement before sailing for France in 1920. He was a founding member of the Chinese Communist Youth Corps in France, in charge of political indoctrination. He also joined the Nationalist Party (or Kuomintang, KMT) in 1923, his dual-party membership made possible by the united front that KMT leader Sun Yat-sen negotiated with the Soviet Union. After returning to China in 1924, he became the deputy director of the political department of the Whampoa Military Academy, which Chiang Kaishek headed, in which position he recruited young cadets for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to infiltrate the KMT officer corps. Zhou was able to escape Chiang’s dragnet when the latter purged communists from the KMT in 1927, visited the Soviet Union, and finally surfaced in Ruijin (Juichin), the CCP headquarters in Jiangxi (Kiangsi) Province, in 1931. In Ruijin the Zhou–Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung) collaboration began, and lasted until Zhou’s death in 1976. Zhou participated in the Long March (1934–35) and was a negotiator for the CCP in the formation of the Second United Front with the KMT, which came about as a result of Japan’s all-out war against China in 1937. He represented the CCP in China’s wartime capital Chongqing (Chungking) as a member of the People’s Political Council and successfully undermined the KMT with his personal charisma and the reasonable image he projected of the CCP. Zhou represented the CCP in post–World War II talks with the KMT, mediated by U.S. special ambassador George Marshall. Zhou employed the “now talk; now fight” strategy, which contributed to the United States washing its hands of China and the CCP victory over the KMT in 1949. When the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was established in 1949, Zhou became both premier and foreign minister. He personally handled China’s important international negotiations even after he ceded the foreign minister post to Chen Yi in 1958. Besides taking numerous negotiating trips to the Soviet Union, he also represented China at the Geneva Conference, which ended the First Indochina War in 1954, and at the Bandung Conference of 29 Afro- Asian states in 1955, where China was accepted as the leader of the “anti-imperialist” bloc of nations. He mediated between the Soviet Union, Hungary, and Poland in 1957 but failed to find a peaceful solution with India in the Sino-Indian boundary dispute. He was the lone leader of moderation during the violence and chaos of the Cultural Revolution after 1966 and played a key role in bringing about the rapprochement between China and the United States that culminated in President Richard Nixon’s visit to China in 1972. In his last years Zhou promoted pragmatist Deng Xiaoping (Teng Hisao-p’ing) to be his vice premier. Deng consolidated power and began economic reforms after Mao’s death. Among Mao’s senior associates, Zhou alone escaped being purged in a long career. See also Gang of Four and Jiang Qing; Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China (1966–1976). Further reading: Han, Suyin. Eldest Son, Zhou Enlai and the Making of Modern China, 1898–1976. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1994; Hsu Kai-yu. Chou En-lai: China’s Gray Eminence. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968; Lee, Chae-lin. Zhou Enlai: The Early Years. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Zia, Khaleda (1945– ) Bangladeshi prime minister Khaleda Zia became the prime minister of Bangladesh for the third time in October 2001 for a five-year term. She was born on August 15, 1945, in Jalpaiguri (now in Bengal, India), the third of her parents’ five children. Zia had her early school education at Dinajpur Government Girl School and her post-secondary education at Surendranath College. She was married to Ziaur Rahman, then a captain in the Pakistan army, in August 1960. Ziaur Rahman later broke away from the Pakistan army to join the pro-independence forces of Bangladesh on March 25, 1971. After her husband’s assassination in 1981, his party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), chose Zia as the president on March 10, 1984. In the 1991 election the BNP received a massive mandate, securing an absolute majority, and Zia began her tenure as Bangladesh’s first female prime minister (1991–96). During her first tenure she brought about major educational changes by mandating free and compulsory education for girls. She introduced incentives such as stipends for young female students and revitalized the economy by taking poverty alleviation measures. Zia became prime minister for the second consecutive term when the BNP scored a landslide victory in the February 1996 general election. During her second Zia, Khaleda 47 5 term she increased the age limit for entry into government service to 30 years of age. She also made efforts to safeguard the traditional and cultural identity of underdeveloped hill and tribal people of Bangladesh by providing them with employment opportunities, education, and other facilities to improve their standard of living. She was elected prime minister for the third time in October 2001, when she led a four-party alliance to win a two-thirds majority in the parliamentary poll, but was deposed in 2007. In foreign affairs she promoted regional cooperation with Bangladesh’s South Asian neighbors, including India. She also actively supported United Nations peacekeeping efforts. On the environment she took measures for planned usage of water resources, prevention of erosion of riverbanks, and maintaining ecological balance through conservation of forests. In local government and people’s empowerment she decentralized the power at the village, union, district, and subdistrict levels through a four-tier, autonomous, and democratic local self-governance. Further reading: Baxter, Craig. Bangladesh: From a Nation to a State. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997; Zafarullah, Habib. The Zia Episode in Bangladesh Politics. Dhaka: University Press of Bangladesh, 1997. Mohammed Badrul Alam Zia-ul-Haq, Mohammad (1924–1988) Pakistani president Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq was president of Pakistan for more than a decade from 1977, when he overthrew the government of Zulfikar Bhutto, to 1988, the year of his death in a plane crash. As the president of Pakistan, in 1978, Zia established a totalitarian and dictatorial regime based on the enforcement of martial law, the suppression of political opponents, and the dissolution of all political parties. When he decided to partially restore democracy, he made key amendments to the constitution ensuring the president the right to overrule parliamentary decisions in the national interest. As president he tried to maintain close links to Islam and to revive the country’s declining economy, while his foreign policy was marked by the support of the mujahideens in the Soviet-Afghan War. Zia was born in Jalandhar on August 12, 1924, the son of a teacher in the British army. He first attended the Government High School in Simla, and then went on to earn his B.A. at St. Stephen College, Delhi. He was commissioned in the British army when he was 19 years old. At the time of the Indian partition he, like most Muslims, chose to continue his career in the Pakistani army. In the early 1960s Zia trained in the United States, and he was later sent to Jordan to help the formation of the country’s army. In April 1976 Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto surprisingly appointed Zia chief of army staff instead of more senior generals. Bhutto probably underestimated Zia’s political abilities, ambitions, and his following in the army. Yet when the opposition coalition of the Pakistan National Alliance charged Bhutto with rigging the electoral results, Zia took advantage of the situation, leading a military coup against Bhutto and decreeing martial law to reestablish order. Zia consolidated his grip on the government and created the Disqualification Tribunal, which forced many politicians and members of Parliament to retire from public life. He also decided to dissolve parliament and replace it with the Majlis-i-Shoora, an assembly of 284 member from the different classes of Pakistani society who were, however, selected by the president himself. Former prime minister Bhutto was hanged in 1979 after a long and controversial trial. When Zia finally decided to call elections in the mid-1980s, he first secured his right to continue to be president with a referendum that closely linked his presidency with the Islamization of Pakistan. He overwhelmingly won the referendum and appointed Muhammad Khan Junejo as the prime minister. Tensions between the president and the prime minister soon surfaced, and he removed Junejo from office in 1988. The president soon found himself in a difficult position due to the return to Pakistan of Bhutto’s daughter, Benazir Bhutto, who had started to gather the forces of opposition. Zia had not been able to decide how to solve his intricate political situation before he died in a plane crash near Bhawalpur on August 17, 1988. Further reading: Jaffrelot, Christopher. A History of Pakistan and Its Origins. London: Anthem Press, 2002; Talbot, Ian. Pakistan: A Modern History. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999. Luca Prono